Lodowik Landi Pote, Maximus M. Taek, Anggelinus Nadut, Gertreda Latumakulita

The Effect of Solvent Types on The Antibacterial and Cytotoxic Activity of Lino Bark Extract

Introduction

The effect of solvent types on the antibacterial and cytotoxic activity of lino bark extract. Discover how solvent type affects G. koordersiana (lino bark) extract's antibacterial and cytotoxic activity. Ethanol & methanol extracts are potent against bacteria.

Abstract

The G. koordersiana Burret plant, especially its bark, is used by the Sumba community to treat wounds, ulcers, and liver. This study aims to determine the effect of solvent types on the antibacterial and cytotoxic activity of G. koordersiana Burret extract. The research methods used were maceration method, antibacterial test, and cytotoxic test of G. koordersiana Burret bark extract. The results showed that the yield of ethanol, methanol, and n-hexane extracts were 42.15%; 41.65%; and 0.62%, respectively. Ethanol and methanol extracts had antibacterial activity against E. coli and S. aureus bacteria, while n-hexane extract did not show antibacterial activity against both bacteria. Cytotoxic tests showed that the LC50 values ​​of ethanol, methanol, and n-hexane extracts were 61.35 ppm; 758.58 ppm; and 2,494,181.19 ppm, respectively. Ethanol and methanol extracts had antibacterial activity and were toxic, while n-hexane extract did not show antibacterial activity and was not toxic. The antibacterial and cytotoxic activities of ethanol and methanol extracts showed the presence of secondary metabolite compounds of the alkaloid, phenolic, flavonoid, tannin, triterpenoid, and saponin groups, while n-hexane extract contained triterpenoid compounds that had no inhibitory power against bacteria or cytotoxic activity.

Review

This study provides a valuable preliminary investigation into the traditional medicinal plant *G. koordersiana Burret*, addressing the impact of different solvent types on its bioactivity. The research effectively highlights the traditional knowledge surrounding "lino bark" by empirically testing its antibacterial and cytotoxic properties. The objective is clearly stated, and the results contribute significantly to understanding the phytochemical diversity and potential therapeutic applications of this plant, particularly for communities in Sumba. The comparative analysis across ethanol, methanol, and n-hexane extracts offers crucial insights into the extraction efficiency and bioactivity profiles relevant to natural product drug discovery. The methodology employed is straightforward and appropriate for an initial screening, utilizing maceration for extraction and standard *in vitro* assays for antibacterial (against *E. coli* and *S. aureus*) and cytotoxic (LC50) activities. A key strength lies in the clear differentiation of results: the polar extracts (ethanol, methanol) consistently demonstrate both high yields and significant antibacterial and cytotoxic effects, which are convincingly linked to the presence of various secondary metabolite groups. In contrast, the non-polar n-hexane extract shows negligible activity and very low yield, containing primarily triterpenoids. The quantitative LC50 values provide a clear measure of differential toxicity, with the ethanol extract showing notably higher toxicity than the methanol extract, and both being far more active than the n-hexane extract. While the study successfully identifies active extracts and correlates activity with compound classes, further depth would enhance its impact. The abstract mentions that ethanol and methanol extracts "were toxic," but a more nuanced discussion on the degree of toxicity (e.g., 61.35 ppm vs. 758.58 ppm) in relation to potential therapeutic applications, especially given the plant's traditional use for wounds and ulcers, would be beneficial. It would be valuable to discuss if this level of cytotoxicity might limit systemic application while still allowing for topical use, or if further purification is necessary to separate beneficial antibacterial compounds from cytotoxic ones. Additionally, the identification of specific active compounds within the identified secondary metabolite groups (alkaloids, flavonoids, etc.) would be a logical and important next step, potentially through bioassay-guided fractionation, to fully elucidate the mechanism and safety profile of the most promising extracts.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.